Monday, 28 January 2013

There has been a lot of writing about e-cigs in The Times the past few days, this article being the best to illustrate my long-held view that they are a magnificent tool for pricking the huge bubbles of of hysteria around nicotine, so cleverly-constructed over decades by legions of anti-smoking scaremongers.

A teenage girl looks up from her pizza, frowns and pulls a face at her grandmother.The “smoke” from our electronic cigarette has wafted over towards their table.

In Pizza Hut in Kensington, the supper of Sophie Weeks, 13, and her young brother, grandmother and mother has been interrupted. They take furtive glances at the plastic, liquid-nicotine device that emits vapour and is designed to look like the real thing. And, having politely muttered to themselves that it is an e-cigarette.

and not a carcinogenic, they return to their food. We continue puffing on the ecigarette.
More than five years after the smoking in public places ban was introduced, the first real test to its authority has come with the rise of the e-cigarette as an increasingly popular alternative to smoking tobacco.

This, of course, is the smoking ban which came about via a campaign which consisted solely of mostly state-funded career prohibitionists fulfilling a 40 year plan to convince vacant MPs that passive smoke was on the same toxic level as Sarin gas.

So successful have they been that the more gullible in society have developed an irrational phobia of anything which is remotely smoke-like (apart from deadly car fumes, of course, which are considered entirely normal and largely safe).

With two e-cigarette companies having advertised on television this month — testing, in the process, the 48-year ban on promoting smoking on television — The Times visited a range of indoor public places to gage the public’s reception.

Scared? By what? Did he/she think they would die from a wisp of smoke? Well, it's possible, but more likely the scare was that they could be quite innocently liable to a fine of up to £2,500 for not adequately enforcing the state's 'benevolent' law. If so. the enemy here is not the vaper (or smoker), but the dictatorial sadists who devised such a disgusting regime for private business owners to abide by.

The piece goes on to highlight why anti-smokers are desperately scrambling for junk science to encourage legislators to ban e-cigs. You see, they are beginning to be recognised widely.

At the neighbouring Burberry, an “undercover” female security guard in a beige trench coat explains she’s more concerned about tobacco smoke wafting in from the doorway than e-cigarettes instore. “We have no reason to ban them,” she says.“You do a double take. But as soon as you see it’s an e-cigarette, you don’t bat an eyelid.”

Nor should they, whether e-cig or no. But again, it is state scaremongery which has got them darting their eyes around as if a uniformed jobsworth is licking his pencil and preparing to be a smoking Pataweyo. This, despite the much reported figure of 98% compliance by the tobacco control industry as a triumph (as if any fine of that level for any behaviour would result in anything less).

E-cigs also seem to be proving that the general public are generally regarded by authority as pretty stupid.

In the Apple Store, the well-staffed ranks look on, unable to state what the company’s policy is on e-cigarettes. Nor can an assistant at Leicester Square Tube station. “It may be better you go outside in case people misunderstand,” she suggests.

OK, that was a cheap shot. They're not stupid for believing that e-cig vapour might be real smoke, because it can look quite realistic. Having said that, since many believe that something which was all prevalent in the lives of baby boomers who have delivered the longest living generation in history - along with the corresponding pensions crisis due to their longevity - is now as dangerous as spending a few minutes in a nuclear reactor, perhaps the cap may fit for quite a few.

At King’s Cross station, where 31 people died 26 years ago after a smoker dropped a lit cigarette on an escalator, commuters watch unmoved.

So, too, at a petrol station in the East End.On the No 13 bus to Aldwych, the driver is more certain. “No smoking anything.” Transport for London’s official position is that e-smokers are permitted.

Yes, the humble e-cig also exposes officious little shits who make rules up as they go along.

The driver of a Black Cab said that the official line was not to allow smoking of any sort in the back of the taxi, but most cabbies used their discretion.

Hmm, interesting. That explains habits of quite a few queueing drivers at the rank outside Waterloo station (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more).

E-cigs also snigger and point a an accusatory finger at woeful laziness.

Meanwhile, at City airport, the policy was official. “We don’t allow smoking or them to be smoked anywhere in the building,” a flight assistant said. “People might think they’re the real thing.”

Err, they could always invest some time to ascertain what is being 'smoked', couldn't they? You know, spend some time - for the comfort of their paying customers - to clear vapers but tackle anyone who actually does break the terms of the Health Act 2006. Too much like hard work, obviously.

And lastly, won't somebody please think of the chiiildren?

In McDonald’s on High Holborn, Hayden Evans, 12, from Colchester, asks his father whether my smoke will “go into” his Happy Meal.

There is a sort of precedent - replica firearms and even toy ones. Not that cigarettes pose the slightest threat of harm to members of the public, but the perception exists. On the other hand, there are many e cigs that don't look like cigarettes at all, nor equipped with a glowing tip (or, if so, blue or green), despite the vapour mimicking smoke.

This excuse of someone might think it a proper cigarette so you should not vape sounds stupid to me. If someone else thought it was a real cig they would report the "smoker". So the "smoker" might get another visit from an officious official. That's their problem, not the problem of the official.

Everyone knows the law is very strong on smoking and would never think to get a real cigarette out just because someone else seems to be doing so already.

I can't recall that smoking in shops was common before it was banned... it was considered polite to stub your cigarette out before going in... I didn't smoke in shops and I used to be a 40/day type... it's a bit like the superfluous signs defacing churches...no one smoked in them in any case, I would have thought that there would be a carry-over and that people wouldn't use their e-cigs in such places... it seems to be a way of trying to pick a fight.

Just a heads-up for you Dick, I am an avid vaper (don't worry I'm no rabid knob of an ex-smoker like some fools are) and you are getting quite a rep on some of the larger UK vaping forums for your excellent e-cig related articles, I've even dropped your blog link on one of them a couple of times.

I was reading one of the threads over there on UKVapers forum and one of the vapers made a post detailing how he had wrote to his MP and MEP (as many are doing as they are trying to stop the faceless and unelected EU bureaucrats forcing them back onto the ciggys) and he ruined a superb letter by putting this in it: "Whilst I support the restrictions on tobacco, smoking and cigarettes being proposed, I must voice my indignation at the proposed inclusion of restrictions to Nicotine Containing Products, particularly E-Cigs, or personal vaporisers."

I told him that it doesn't work like that, you can't advocate certain bans and not others.

But his intentions are good and many vapers are starting a fightback, here's hoping that common sense prevails.

Tests showed that a lit cigarette would not ignite the fluff and grease caught in the sides of the elevator. So the *presumption* is that someone inadvertently dropped a lit match. No one knows whether this is true or, if it was a match, what the match was used for.

Like Tony, I am now a converted fan of e-vaping. I have not 'smoked' for nealy 16 weeks (count the days). They cost less, they smell less, they are almost certainly less harmful than tobacco as such (regardless of what the drug company's PRs say) - it is just a fifferent dleivery mechanism to lozenges, patches, etc. Why, Oh, why do we not get support from the UK politicos, the EU and the medical profession. Ah, hold on - billions of ££££ are at stake - so stupid question. Look, just try Googling "electronic cigarette uk" - pick one, try one - then tell me they are worse than smoking ...

Can you imagine it not only staying alight during its descent from the originators hand to the floor, but also down the side of the escalator, into the greased area it supposedly landed, meanwhile maintaining enough heat to ignite the grease? Sorry. Sounds like bollocks to me.

Electronic Cigarette offer many benefits over conventional cigarettes including reduced health risks, the possibility of cost savings, avoidance of smoking bans, the absence of second hand smoke and no lingering smoke smell.